• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

Should a Man have an Absolute Right to abort his baby?

  • Yes, but only during the first 20 weeks, same as a woman.

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Yes, but only during the initial period when a non-invasive technique works.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.

    Votes: 44 49.4%
  • NO! Only the woman has this right and he remains responsible.

    Votes: 18 20.2%
  • I oppose all abortion, so neither have the right.

    Votes: 19 21.3%
  • I Don't Know.

    Votes: 5 5.6%

  • Total voters
    89
You are doing nothing but speaking and arguing emotion.

It is pointless because she is full of double speak as what she says applies to men and but not women as Henrin pointed out.

It is pointless because she speaks of responsibility of how the pregnancy came about, which is irrelevant to the fact of where we are at, that a woman gets to choose whether or not to burden herself as well as the man with the raising of a child.
She should only get to choose to burden herself, and not the other. She should not be able to choose for him.
He should be able to choose just like she does whether or not he wants that burden.


Under the system you prefer, she would not get this choice either. But that is not the way it is.

Under the current system she does get to choose, so the man should also be able to choose whether or not he wants the burden and not have it forced on him by her. That is equality.


Continue the lie all you want, but the fact is that upon birth the woman and man both have equal legal responsibility.

You have, in my opinion, the twisted view that is about the man and the woman. It's not. It's about the child once born. You absolutely OPPOSE equality of parenting obligations in relation to the child.

If the man wants the woman to have the child, certainly you agree the woman should should be able to require the man to medically undergo the same effects and risks as the pregnancy. To be injected with hormones. Required to drink impiac to make him throw up ever day. To insert an saline filled water bag in his stomach that is increasingly enlarged. Then when she goes into labor to give him drugs to cause extreme muscle retractions for hours, and finally to pull out the inflated bag thru a slit below his genitals smaller than the bag - because you believe there should be equality.

You do want equality, right?
 
Opinion isn't context. Its a child from conseption. Thats just a medical fact. That you "disagree" means nothing. Go ahead and "disagree", that's like disagreeing that 1+1=2. Knock yourself out.

Here comes the trying to divert every topic on abortion to "its a baby"... "not it's not".... "yes it is".... always to derail the topic.:roll:
 
All men *do* have the right to have an abortion

whenever they get pregnant

Letting a man have any say over a womans right to choose to have an abortion is like allowing women to have a say over a man's right to have testicular cancer operated on

True, and if he refused to abort to her demand that he abort, she is still absolutely legally and economically obligated to that child too. Thus, prefect equality already exists in such regards.
 
Continue the lie all you want,
That would be you who is lying.
First of all you are requoting what you already responded to, and not the reply given to that response.

I did not say the things you attributed to me in the other reply.
And when I asked "did I?", which is a challenge to you to prove these things you say I said. You deflect with this nonsense.

So prove it. Show us all these lies you speak of. Or get on Jerry's truck.


It's about the child once born.
No it is not.
It is about giving the man the same right a woman has. An effective right to choose.


You absolutely OPPOSE equality of parenting obligations in relation to the child.
No I do not when it is equally accepted by both.
So stop spouting nonsense.


If the man wants the woman to have the child, certainly you agree the woman should should be able to require the man to medically undergo the same effects and risks as the pregnancy. To be injected with hormones. Required to drink impiac to make him throw up ever day. To insert an saline filled water bag in his stomach that is increasingly enlarged. Then when she goes into labor to give him drugs to cause extreme muscle retractions for hours, and finally to pull out the inflated bag thru a slit below his genitals smaller than the bag - because you believe there should be equality.

You do want equality, right?
More emotive irrelevant and ridiculous blather from you.
None of that has anything with equality of choice, and you know damn well it doesn't.
So stop with the nonsense.
 
Yet you're granting her an out, while refusing to grant the man an out.

As a man you accept the realities of the "out" that is available to you. You don't whine and run because you dropped the ball
 
As a man you accept the realities of the "out" that is available to you. You don't whine and run because you dropped the ball

What if she lied to him about being on BC? Why should she be allowed to terminate her parenthood through abortion for any reason (unless it is restricted) while a man cannot? What about her "out" when equal to the man? I'm assuming the out you are referring to is the male using contraception or something to prevent pregnancy when they had sex.
 
Wrong!
You are disagreeing with medical science. It is not a child when it is just a clump of cells.

You're actually arguing over a word, sorry.
 
What if she lied to him about being on BC? Why should she be allowed to terminate her parenthood through abortion for any reason (unless it is restricted) while a man cannot? What about her "out" when equal to the man? I'm assuming the out you are referring to is the male using contraception or something to prevent pregnancy when they had sex.

Both individuals are ultimately responsible for the outcome so both should use birth control. If a man chooses to "trust" the woman that is a mistake he is responsible for just like all of us, as adults, are responsible for errors in our judgment.
 
So predictable.
Of course it is predictable.
Because your position is untenable.

It is pointless because [you are] full of double speak [by making what you say apply] to men and but not women, as Henrin pointed out.

It is pointless because [you speak] of responsibility of how the pregnancy came about, which is irrelevant to the fact of where we are at, that a woman gets to choose whether or not to burden herself, as well as the man, with the raising of a child.
She should only get to choose to burden herself, and not the other. She should not be able to choose for him.
He should be able to choose just like she does whether or not he wants that burden.
 
You're actually arguing over a word, sorry.
A clump of cells is not a child.

Is it something I am arguing with you, or him?
 
Both individuals are ultimately responsible for the outcome so both should use birth control. If a man chooses to "trust" the woman that is a mistake he is responsible for just like all of us, as adults, are responsible for errors in our judgment.
As previously pointed out.
Birth does not come from sex even a majority of time.
So they were just having sex.

And while a contraceptive is indicative of not wanting a child, it is not a necessity.

The responsibility thing should only come after and declaring it, like it does for her. Which you are not recognizing.
 
Wouldn't it be more fair if he was given roughly the same about of time she theoretically had also?

Ideally yes, but here's the problem with that. I believe that elective abortion should be limited to 20 weeks and earlier. And regardless of how late abortion is legal, the earlier it's done the safer it is. If you also give the guy 20 weeks to make his decision, then the woman will no longer be able to abort if he decides not to help her raise the child. If we give him 30 days, then that means if she tells him as soon as she finds out she's pregnant (generally around week 5) then he'll have to give her an answer around week 9, and she'll still have plenty of time to schedule an abortion if she decides she doesn't want to raise the child alone.
 
Ideally yes, but here's the problem with that. I believe that elective abortion should be limited to 20 weeks and earlier. And regardless of how late abortion is legal, the earlier it's done the safer it is. If you also give the guy 20 weeks to make his decision, then the woman will no longer be able to abort if he decides not to help her raise the child. If we give him 30 days, then that means if she tells him as soon as she finds out she's pregnant (generally around week 5) then he'll have to give her an answer around week 9, and she'll still have plenty of time to schedule an abortion if she decides she doesn't want to raise the child alone.

It seems you are looking at this as more about informing her of his choice so she can consider it, rather than it simply being about his being able to choose. While I support them both considering the others choice in a final decision. It should not be part of the final requirement to his being given, and making, a choice.

She does not, as it is, have to tell him at any stage now, so neither should he have to tell her in a specified amount of time shorter than the amount of time she had to decide.
As far as I am concerned, her choice needs to be independent of his choice, just as her's is now independent. That is what freedom of choice is.

While it would be nice that she knew before she decided, and it most likely would end up that way the vast majority of the time, her choice should not be dependent on his choice, or vise versa.

Even though 60 days sounds okay to me, I believe some guys may need more time. So as previously suggested, 90 days (one trimester) from the time he is advised about the pregnancy or birth, is a fair amount of time. She has roughly the same amount of time, if not more.
This also solves the problem that she may not tell him of the pregnancy in a timely fashion to influence his decision or outcome, and pretty much ensures that she will tell him in a timely manner if she wants to consider his decision.

And yes, that also means that if she informed him late, or even after she chose to give birth, he would still have 90 days, as his choice should be independent of hers.
 
Last edited:
I was almost with you up until the underlined part. I'm confused there....so if a woman lies in order to get pregnant you're saying that's a perfectly acceptable method of force-starting a family?? You do realize that using a condom is not 100% certain, right? Beyond that, as Lizzie point's out, the WOMAN is in charge of her body and can REQUIRE a man to put protection on right?

This should be especially true of any woman who is Pro-Life! She should NEVER allow a male to engage in sexual activity unless she is fully protected by both his "sock" and her contraceptives. IMO No one should expect a moment of passion to become a lifetime of hatred and recrimination.

Well people always say that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, the only 100% way to not end up pregnant is to not have sex. The same goes for the male. IOW, you'd better make sure you REALLY like the person you're bedding down with. :mrgreen:
 
What if the woman is against abortion, or the man? All of these ideas SOUND good in theory, but there are too many complicating factors involved.
 
The child will need it.

We do not punish children for their mother's sins.

we should make irresponsible breeding a significant stigma rather than sticking the tax payers with paying for the upbringing of such children. and if you make those who do such things pay heavily rather than subsidizing their decision, we won't have nearly as many unwanted children or children of the irresponsible

I am tired with being told I have an unlimited duty to fund the decisions of others
 
TD...since when does the pill protect against pregnancy 100% why take that chance? But the real deal is...in your scenario...if the guy just jumps in bed with someone that he has to ask if she is protected...why isn't he protecting himself from at least STD's if he not worried about the possibility of pregnancy?

Not the issue
 
Not the issue

Well the man has to take responsibility too. He is just as responsible, as he is also QUITE aware of the little bundle of joy that can result from a sexual tryst.

I think that is the idea with the laws as they stand now. Don't want to be responsible, keep it in your pants. :mrgreen:
 
Well the man has to take responsibility too. He is just as responsible, as he is also QUITE aware of the little bundle of joy that can result from a sexual tryst.

I think that is the idea with the laws as they stand now. Don't want to be responsible, keep it in your pants. :mrgreen:


well if a woman has an unlimited ability to abort the pregnancy even if the man is willing to pay for the the child, the man ought to have a right to opt out of that financial burden
 
well if a woman has an unlimited ability to abort the pregnancy even if the man is willing to pay for the the child, the man ought to have a right to opt out of that financial burden

But the reason for that is because the woman has to deal with a "procedure" on her body no matter what choice is made. The man does not have that burden. Either the child birth or an abortion can have negative consequences, so it is the woman who takes the risk. The only responsibility the man bears is a financial one, if he doesn't want to be involved in that child's life.

I wish there was a way that the man could have more say in the matter. I would suggest that perhaps people discuss these things before they have sex, but then again what a mood killer THAT would be. :rofl
 
The she has to decide what to do. As I said, it's entirely her choice.

edit: if she's that moralistic regarding having babies and being pregnant, it's not very likely that she is going to be getting pregnant in the first place, unless she's either stupid, or negligent with her own body.

Currently there is birth control method that is 100 percent effective when having consental sex.

Accidental pregnancies can and do happen.
 
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?

In the alternative, should he be granted relief from all legal responsibility if it is his clearly stated wish to abort but the woman decides not to?

Let me preface my remarks with this disclaimer; I am Pro-Choice and I support a woman’s absolute right to choose to have an abortion for several reasons, including the fact it is the woman who must endure the pregnancy to carry the child to term, and then follows the lifelong responsibility to raise and care for any child born.

The dilemma occurs when the woman unilaterally decides to have the baby, even when the male does not wish to accept that long-term responsibility.

In a recent news report, a young man was so desperate not to have a child that he tricked his girlfriend into taking a morning after pill. Now I do not support or condone this action, but it does bring up the thesis issue for me…why does the male partner have no say in a decision to keep the baby?

When a woman makes the unilateral decision to keep the baby this then compels lifelong legal and emotional obligations on the part of the unwilling father. This creates resentment and recriminations in both parties. By attempting to force the man to marry and/or support both her and the child this only serves to create a negative environment for all concerned, especially for any child to grow up in.

Since we now have a simple method of aborting in the early stages of the first trimester, without needing an invasive surgery, why should the absolute choice to keep the baby reside with the mother? If it does, why can’t the man be legally relieved of further responsibility to both parties?

I have offered several voting options, please pick and then explain what do you think? I am especially interested in arguments for why the woman has the sole right to keep the child while making the man permanently responsible.

Given the fact that he was also quite aware of the consequences of his decision, I would say that he probably had no business having sex if he was not prepared for the resultant responsibility.
 
I oppose abortion in principle and want it restricted but it is legal without limits federally. And as long as it is legal without restrictions, men should have the option to abort their financial responsibility which would accomplish the equivalent to a woman aborting the physical pregnancy.

In the USA abortion is not legal without limits.
 
I have been pretty clear. I advocate for restrictions once a child is viable. Viability actually can restrict abortion, maybe, even up to the 23 week......

But that isn't the law of the land. The law of the land says that a woman can abort up until delivery. And in this legal reality, men should be given the choice too.

If you live the USA than abortion is restricted by the states at viability.
Currently the limit of viability ( where 50 percent of the premies will survive) is 24 weeks gestation and that has remained unchanged for the last 12 years.

Less than .1 percent of all legal abortions occur after viability.
They are the extreme cases. The cases were the woman's life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy continued, where the fetus would be stillborn or would only live a few minutes or hours.

There are only 4 doctors left in the USA who perform legal abortions after viability.
In 2008 there were 5.

Dr Tiller also used to perform abortions after viability in these extreme cases.
Kansas was one of a small handful of states that would allow abortions after viability in these extreme cases.
Kansas keep records of all abortions at or the after 22 week gestation mark. 24 weeks is the limit of viability.

OB/GYNs from all the USA would send their patients who had these problem pregnancies to Dr. Tiller.

In 2008 there were 323 abortions that took place at or after 22 weeks gestation.

192 of those cases were because the fetus was not viable. It would be stillborn or it was so malformed it would only live a few minutes or hours.

131 of those cases were because there would be irreparable damage to a major bodily function if the pregnancy were allowed to continue.

They were extreme cases.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom